1 2025:CGHC:46330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 238 of 2025 * - Nadesan Suman W/o K. Unnikrishnan Aged About 56 Years R/o Quarter No. 4/A Road No. 35, Sector-10, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Plaintiff) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Ramesh Kumar Bele S/o Late Balaji Aged About 45 Years President Dhama P. Education Pvt. Ltd. (Village Panchayat Dhanora) House No. 13, Sadak No. 8, Sector-5, Bhilai, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Since Died) (Defendants) 2 - Village Panchayat Dhanora Through Sarpanch, Village Panchyat Dhanora, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Collector Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 For Respondent No. 3 : : Mr. Rishabh Mishra, Advocate along with Mr. Shailesh Puriya, Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 12.02.2025 and be directed the learned trial judge to maintained the order passed dated 09.08.2023 and also to maintained dated 20.10.2023. Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI Date: 2025.09.12 19:45:20 +0530 2 2. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially civil suit was filed by the petitioner as plaintiff No. 2 and Vijayan Nadesan who was plaintiff No. 1. He would submit that during pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 1 Vijayan Nadesan died. He would contend that as there was no representation on behalf of the legal representatives of plaintiff No.1, therefore, the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.10.2023 permitted the petitioner to implead the legal representatives of the plaintiff No. 1 as defendants. He would submit that the order was complied with and process fee was also paid for service of summons. He would contend that the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.02.2025 exercising suo moto power under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC directed plaintiff No. 2 to delete the name of legal representatives of plaintiff No. 1 and implead them as defendants No. 4 to 7. Mr. Jaiswal would submit that the very order was passed by the learned trial Court on 20.10.2023, therefore, there was no occasion for the said Court to reiterate the said order. He would pray to allow this petition. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents would oppose. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. Considering the fact that direction was issued on the application moved by the petitioner to implead legal representatives of plaintiff No.1 as defendants vide order dated 20.10.2023 and again the learned trial Court exercising suo moto power under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC directed plaintiff No. 2 to implead legal representatives of plaintiff No.1 as defendants No. 4 to 7, therefore, the subsequent order dated 3 12.02.2025 is hereby set aside, as order dated 20.10.2023 was complied with by the petitioner and the legal representatives of plaintiff No.1 were substituted on record. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed to the above extent. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti